Whether a high-speed rail system ever gets built in the United States is still up in the air, but if it is, artist and activist Alfred Twu has figured out exactly where those speedy rail lines should go.

Twu started working on this map in 2009, when President Obama's plan to build high-speed rail was unveiled. "There were many such maps being made by various designers," says Twu, but since then he's updated the map with labels and put it on Facebook, and it struck a chord. It's gone viral.

"With the huge response it's generated, I created a petition to the White House to fund such a system," he told Mashable. After just a week, that White House petition already has 27,528 signatures.

Twu's not just guessing where those routes should be, either. "The routes are based on various studies by government agencies and advocacy groups," he explains.

We like the map's colors and its overall design, into which Twu put a lot of thought. "Some artistic license was applied to make it more elegant and have it be a series of distinct lines like a subway map," he says. "Colors were selected to convey the idea of the U.S. being made up of several interwoven regional cultures that come together at major cities  like an internal melting pot."

Trains zipping across the continent at 220mph might sound like a far-fetched futuristic concept, but Twu thinks this project could be built out much like the Interstate Highway System was built in the 50s, he says. "I've seen 2030 and 2050 as potential dates from various advocacy groups," Twu added.

As you look at the map, you'll see that Twu included unshaded routes, which he says were "purposely left open to interpretation." He says the general idea of adding those routes would be that they would handle "lower-speed trains, as well as potential future high-speed routes."

But certainly there's not enough money to do something like this, given the economic situation in the United States at the moment, right? Tsu says cost estimates for a high-speed rail system like this range from $1-$2 trillion. Geez, that's a lot of money. He responded, "Sounds like a lot, but divided over four decades, that is around $25-$50 billion a year or 80-160 dollars a year per person. That's one tank's worth of gas money."

To get a closer look at the map, view or download this .PDF file.

What do you think, readers? Will this speedy rail system be going near your house? Should the United States catch up with the rest of the developed world and build the system, or should budget constraints keep us from spending money on this futuristic conveyance?

Too much of the transportation sector is in the hands of the government now. Allowing streetcars or “light rail”, never mind any kind of passenger rail (despite the latter’s role in building the country) to be built in any kind of economic or frugal fashion just can’t be done, mainly because the government owns all the infrastructure (not in the case of private freight-hauling railroads) but also because of the infinite pages of government regulations that get in the way (most definitely in the case of private railroads).

This is why you don’t even see private companies running city buses anymorethey are all state or city agencies.

We don’t have fast freight on the rails anymore due to government regulations, either; there used to be freight trains running at 90 mph, but that got regulated out of existence.

In the SF Bay area there is NO WHERE to build a corridor for high speed anything. The current state plan calls for bussing people from the Bay Area to the central valley to pick up a train. The top speed for the train proposed in California turns out to be less than 60 mph due to all of the right of ways and towns up and down the valley.

I disagree much with the “buffalo commons” idea. But how about pushing legislation to make some of more the politically correct animal worshipers up here “free the buffalo?” Then we can start a more efficient breeding program and hunt ‘em, eh? Give ‘em a dose of their own medicine, seeing as how they’ve robbed some real ranchers (animal protection laws enforced against high altitude ranchers of cattle).

29
posted on 03/04/2013 3:35:49 PM PST
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

HSR makes sense for regional hops of less than 400 to maybe 600 miles or along an existing (and successful) corridor like Washington DC to Boston. But for long hauls you’re right that it just can’t compete with aircraft.

Unless, of course, Obozo has his way and institutes carbon taxes that make air travel cost prohibitive for everyone but the limousine liberals.

30
posted on 03/04/2013 3:35:50 PM PST
by MeganC
(The left have so twisted public perceptions that the truth now appears pornographic.- SpaceBar)

Right, even high speed trains aren’t competitive with air travel on long-haul flights. The question is whether high speed trains are competitive with air travel on short haul flights?

I don’t know the answer to this, but it’s a question that is worth asking. Chicago to New York in 4 hours or so is pretty competitive (in my view) with airline service, particularly if I can arrive at Penn Station as opposed to landing in Long Island or New Jersey and having to take a car into the city.

I can fly Boston to New York a lot faster than I can take the Acela. But on the Acela, the seats are a lot more comfortable, I can spread out at a table, I can bring a computer, I can do work, and the train stops in the city. That’s pretty good.

The question is not the initial cost—which, as the author indicates, is relatively trivial over a long period of years—but the ongoing costs of maintenance and service. Would a ticket on my Chicago-NY train be $250 or $1000? All of that makes a pretty big difference, I think.

“In the SF Bay area there is NO WHERE to build a corridor for high speed anything.”

Sure there is. It can be built along the right of way that Cal Train uses, it can be built elevated on top of that right of way, and it can be built under that right of way just the same as BART is built under a portion of that right of way. It could also be tunneled across the Bay to the new terminal near AT&T Park.

So long as it isn’t done with tax money I personally don’t care where they build it. Or not. It’s California - let them stew in traffic.

40
posted on 03/04/2013 3:45:24 PM PST
by MeganC
(The left have so twisted public perceptions that the truth now appears pornographic.- SpaceBar)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.